Judicial Watch files ethics complaint over Obama loan
posted at 8:35 am on July 10, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The watchdog group Judicial Watch filed two ethics complaints over the rate break given to Barack Obama by the lender for his home mortgage, Northern Trust. The complaints to the FEC and the Senate Ethics Committee charge that Obama accepted an inappropriate gift worth $125,000 over the life of the mortgage with Northern Trust’s discounted rate:
Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, filed the report after The Washington Post reported that Obama received a discount on a mortgage for a Chicago home valued at $1.65 million. The complaints said the Illinois senator received a loan at the interest rate of 5.625 percent, which Judicial Watch says is lower than the standard rate of between 5.93 and 6 percent indicated by surveys.
The complaint asks the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate whether the favorable rates constitute a prohibited “gift” under Senate rules.
The FEC action focuses on the donations made by Northern Trust as an indicator of a political favor. Employees gave Obama’s campaign $71,000, which JW believes to be an indicator of the favorable treatment Obama received for the loan. Obama didn’t have to pay points or fees to get the lower rate, either, which is very unusual for the “super-jumbo” loan he received.
All of that and $5 will buy a cup of latte at Starbucks, too. The problem here is that most of this can be explained at least enough to get past the complaints — especially with the Senate Ethics Committee. That group probably won’t rouse itself to take action against Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad, two Senators who obviously got preferential treatment on loans and rates through the intervention of Countrywide’s CEO, Angelo Mozilo. Dodd and Conrad deserve removal, but if they even get so much as a censure, I’ll eat my hat.
The FEC complaint seems even weaker. Northern Trust employees donated a lot of money to Obama, but he’s a Chicago politician, too, and lots of companies have employees who donate lots of money to politicians of both parties. Unless JW has evidence that Northern Trust used straw donors to launder donations to Obama, it doesn’t look like a problem for Obama.
The deal bothers me more than it does Jazz Shaw, who sees it as a lower-margin leader for more potential business from a wealthy client. The mortgage and its no-fees, no-points arrangement clearly looks like preferential treatment for political rather than commercial purposes, but it’s ambiguous enough to keep Obama and Northern Trust out of hot water. I doubt that it will register among voters in the long run — and Obama can thank his colleagues Dodd and Conrad for their inadvertent assistance in that regard.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Thin maybe, but it can start chipping away at Obamas Chicago past and raise ethical concerns. Worth a shot.
Tazz 55 on July 10, 2008 at 8:43 AM
No prob.
An inartful discounted interest rate.
fogw on July 10, 2008 at 8:46 AM
It should make a nice campaign commercial.
mad saint jack on July 10, 2008 at 8:49 AM
This interest rate is not the interest rate I once knew.
mad saint jack on July 10, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Judicial Watch is the anti-ACLU. They are well worth sending a donation to! A plug for one of my favorite groups.
JiangxiDad on July 10, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Culture of corruption, cheap mortgages no points, something Joe Foreclosure can understand.
tarpon on July 10, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Judicicial?
Is that the same as Judicial? Or better?
cntrlfrk on July 10, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Why didn’t they include a complaint about Tony Rezko’s suspicious purchase of the adjoining lot (at a time when he claimed to be broke), without which the purchase of the house could not have happened. Given Rezko’s documented corruption and his previous dealings with Obama, that aspect of the deal seems a lot more problematic to me.
AZCoyote on July 10, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Judicial Watch is a collection of fruitcakes. While I am no fan of Obama, I would be inclined to take anything JW alleges against him (or anybody else, for that matter) with a pillar of salt.
morganfrost on July 10, 2008 at 8:58 AM
In an era where many people are worrying about losing their houses altogether, news about a sweetheart, low interest mortgage, may gain more traction than some think.
MarkTheGreat on July 10, 2008 at 9:00 AM
This was not the loan Obama thought he knew.
I will say, however, that Dodd got the same amount of interest (about 25-35 basis points) shaved off his loans through Countryside’s “VIP Program” as Obama got from Northern Trust. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25140560/. (Conrad, by contrast, got 100 basis points shaved off his loan.)
So what? Dodd is evil because his “insider deal” with the bank had the word “VIP” stamped on the loan documents, and Obama gets off because his loan didn’t have “VIP” stamped on it?
Outlander on July 10, 2008 at 9:06 AM
The difference is that there was demonstrable intervention at Countrywide, and so far none at NT. Also, Dodd chairs the Banking Committee, while Obama doesn’t have a seat on a committee that pertains to banking.
I fixed “Judicial”, too … thanks!
Ed Morrissey on July 10, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Somebody here showed the other day that the head of the bank served with Michelle on some board or something. Does anybody remember?
TheBigOldDog on July 10, 2008 at 9:13 AM
I don’t know that this specific complaint will get any traction, but I definitely believe that, right now, the words “mortgage industry,” “corruption,” and “politicians” are linked in many people’s minds. If taxpayers end up having to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (see today’s WSJ and the current Fortune), it will only make that link stronger.
I also suspect that the Dodd, Conrad and Countrywide story did not help Congress’ approval ratings in the last Rasmussen poll.
BigD on July 10, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Why? I’ve given money to them before, and have liked the cases they’ve brought. What’s bad about them?
JiangxiDad on July 10, 2008 at 9:39 AM
“The complaints to the FEC and the Senate Ethics Committee charge that Obama accepted an inappropriate gift worth $125,000 over the life of the mortgage …”
and
“… Obama received a discount on a mortgage for a Chicago home valued at $1.65 million.”
Is no mention to be made of the fact that (1) the original parcel was valued at about $2.6 million, (2)some third party managed to (a) divide the parcel and (b) also provide a $300,000 cost reduction to BHO on his purchase, and (3) BHO seems to currently be in sole posession of all parts of the original parcel?
There looks to be, effectivly, a gift of almost $1million to BHO (and apparently from someone recently convicted of …); who else gets such a deal?
Will no investigation be made?
Arbalest on July 10, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Don’t know if this was mentioned but some interesting tidbits in this article http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obama_and_the_woods_fund_of_ch.html
Tazz 55 on July 10, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Hey they got Capone for tax evasion. Whatever works!
ctmom on July 10, 2008 at 9:51 AM
As Jimmy Buffett aptly said ” We need more fruitcakes in this world!” Carry On, Judicial Watch!
MNDavenotPC on July 10, 2008 at 9:54 AM
It helped Michell and the children.
Very weak, he has a lot worse, interesting and it is worth “bringing up” as a “politician as usual”, but not much that concerns me.
right2bright on July 10, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Obama got sweetheart deals bribes for a long way, must of had something to do with that pork he bought.
Chakra Hammer on July 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM
This is just an opening salvo, used to gain more information about the deal…
Because its an ethics complaint, anything found out is part of the public record… thus JW can use this to get information on the rest of the deal.
This lawsuit is just a way of gaining discovery on a larger bribe… the house itself.
Romeo13 on July 10, 2008 at 10:55 AM
It’s only ambiguous to those looking for “ambiguity” to put up a weak defense of an obviously dirty transaction. For normal people, the situation is quite clear.
progressoverpeace on July 10, 2008 at 11:06 AM
That’s great Judicial Watch…But, why not file a quick, fast, clean “Show Cause,” in federal court, against Barack Hussein Obama, requesting he in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, prove he’s a legal U.S. citizen????
byteshredder on July 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Cap’n, your mates over at Fraters have a very good explanation of the “gain” obtained in this loan.
http://www.fraterslibertas.com/2008/07/they-didnt-raise-this-bar.html
Will it amount to much? Probably not. But it does confirm the hopey changitude “character” of Obama. Not much different here, just a different shell on the outside.
rudytbone on July 10, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Do you have anything resembling proof or is this just talk?
snaggletoothie on July 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Good luck with the senate ethics committee. I think they last met around 1987 and their motto is, “If you’re a senator, you’re ethical.” And I think they are only there to provide cover for senators with anyone dumb enough to listen to them, mainly the MSM.
snaggletoothie on July 10, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Comment pages: